Earl Washington Jr came within 9 days of being executed for a crime he didn’t commit. He was pardoned in 2000. And he spent 9 years in prison.
A jury has just ruled that Washington was the victim of a cop who falsified a confession.
I was wondering why the police department itself wasn’t being sued, until I read this:
How much hope has the guy got of getting $2.25 mil out of a personal estate, unless the cop was rolling in dough, which I tend to doubt?
Strange system. That sucks.
If the cop died 12 years ago, then his estate is probably long gone by now.
Precisely. This just sounds like a “Whoops, We’re wrong, but we’ll pretend to put things right” judgement. I suppose the poor guy can’t sue the state itself either?
Well, the decision would be a warning to other police officers that may give false testimony, or the suit may be covered by the police union.
An additional reason to not like the death penalty is the financial burden it places on the budget of the (usually state) government. It costs more tax dollars to execute a criminal than it does to allow that criminal to serve a life term. The extra cost is due to longer trials and the multiple appeals that follow a death sentence.
Only about 11% of convicts sentenced to death since 1976 (year of death penalty reinstatement) are actually executed. So, if you ask me, it’s a waste to sentence a convict to death even if he/she is guilty.
Absolutely right ArchitectChore. Few people know this or they choose to ignore this fact.
I think we could come up with a pretty long list of reasons to be in opposition to the death penalty. (In no particular order of import)
-
The chance of putting to death, just ONE innocent person is not worth it.
-
It costs the State, ie, us, far too much money to execute a criminal.
-
It’s barbaric and medeival.
-
The very notion of the bloodlust that stems from seeking justice for a “wrong” seems to have it’s roots in Christianity of making a judgement for a “sin” and punishing that person by seeing that they meet their maker for judgement sooner than later. A law based on religion seems to defy separation of Church and State. (This is my opinion, not fact. I am not picking on Christianity, but it is the dominant religion in our country and so many laws are based on it’s tenets. )
-
No one stops to think about the world of pain the family of the executed go through. They are forced to suffer needlessly.
Crap, I hope this doesn’t get sent to Great Debates on account of me.
::::humbly jumping off soapbox::::
For me, this is the ***only ***reason I oppose the death penalty. But it’s a big enough reason not to need any more.
I’d add one more reason: there is no evidence that the death penalty has an deterrent value. That is, if you correlate crime rates with whether there is a death penalty, places without a death penalty do not have higher crime rates.
I do not want the state to have the power to kill me. I also don’t exactly trust a jury of my “peers” with that decision.
I agree with you. It’s a lynch mob mentality. Our criminal justice system, although as fair as possible (in structure), it is far from flawless. It’s inhuman for the state or federal gubment to endorse killing a person. (and call it “justice”, hmmph.)
As much as people hate the death sentence, I hope many of you realize that the death sentence is what got this man out of jail.
Maybe in a world of no death sentences, people sentenced to life would have their cases reviewed as diligently and thoroughly as those on Death Row. I’m not holding my breath. Mr. Washington, if not given death, was more likely than not to be forever forgotten in the prison system. Truly innocent people benefit by being given a death sentence due to this odd quirk in the system.
Do you feel this advantage is worth the risk of possibly executing an innocent?
For me, there is only one reason to oppose the death penalty. I don’t want any part of killing someone. If the state does this, and I am a member of the state, then I am part of that person’s death.
If we could somehow change the system so that we knew, 100% that the person was guilty, would you then support the death penalty?
If we could make it cost efficent, would you support the death penalty?
If the criminal had no family, would you support teh death penalty?
If the method of death could be made less cruel, would you support the death penalty?
It is morally wrong to kill people. There are a few ethical reasons that one may find to kill another. If a person is defending themself or another from mortal peril. A soldier in a war may ethically kill someone. However, killing someone you have trapped in a cage is not ethical.
Zebra,
Speaking only for myself here, yes, it’s true that the one true reason I don’t agree with the death penalty is that it is wrong. Pure and simple. The other reasons given are to add to the argument in opposition to capital punishment and to throw a wrench in the arguments of those that are proponents of it.
So many people wrongfully argue that it cost’s to much to house these criminals for life, that it reduces crime, and that it’s neither cruel, nor unusual. All of these arguments are not grounded in any fact, whatsoever.
And to answer you question, would I support capital punishment if it weren’t cruel, costly, and reduced crime? Absolutely not.
No, but I think it raises an interesting question. If I’m in Mr. Washington’s shoes, am I better off getting life in prison or the death penalty? With life, I get to live…a prisoner, all but forgotten by soceity. Hope my family has money, because the odds of someone being mandated to look at my case are slim and none. With death, my case will be reviewed in depth. All the evidence will be reviewed. Sure, the same circumstances that saw me convicted may cause my appeals to fail, but I’ve got a chance.
Two horrible choices: life in prison as an innocent man with miniscule chance of freedom or much better chance of freedom but the spectre of death overhead.
What happens to Mr. Washington if we abolish the death penalty. What is the budget for reviewing life cases? As they are more numerous than DP cases, who gets chosen. And absent the DP and the budgetary needs for it, will the money still be made available for case reviews.
There are no good scenarios.
Off to Great Debates.
Yes, provided that the DP also ignored racial and socio-economic factors.
Same as above (100% surety, racially and socio-economically neutral).
Irrelevant
Irrelevant (although lethal injection is probably the best way to go, versus the ‘chair’)
Obviously, our opinions differ.
And that’s fine by me.
No.
No.
No.
No.
The justice system has one purpose and one purpose only: to reduce crime. The death penalty simply does not help achieve that.